DOCSLIB.ORG

The Economic Impact of UK Nuclear

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Economic Impact of UK Nuclear The Economic Impact of UK Nuclear A Prospect briefing • July 2021 Nuclear’sLatest revision role in coflosing this thedocument: energy gap https://library.prospect.org.uk/id/2021/00737 Page 1 This revision: https://library.prospect.org.uk/id/2021/00737/2021-08-10 The Economic Impact of UK Nuclear A Prospect briefing • July 2021 Contents Summary of key points .........................................................................................................3 UK nuclear: an engine for jobs & economic growth .........................................................3 Economic & jobs benefits of the new build programme ...................................................6 Prospect New Prospect House 8 Leake Street London SE1 7NN Tel: 0300 600 1878 prospect.org.uk The Economic Impact of UK Nuclear • July 2021 Page 2 Summary of key points • The UK’s civil nuclear industry currently sustains tens of thousands of UK jobs; each installed MW of nuclear capacity supports 4.68 direct & supply chain jobs more than any other low carbon technology • The civil nuclear industry is one of the UK’s most productive, with output per full- time equivalent (FTE) job of £103,500, placing the sector well within the top 10% most productive • There is a strong regional dimension to the civil nuclear industry in the UK, with close to two-thirds of jobs located either in the North West or South West of England; the civil nuclear industry is estimated to contribute £1 in every £50 of economic output in these two regions • At a constituency level, nuclear jobs are heavily concentrated in Conservative-held seats, where they contribute millions of pounds annually to their respective local economies • A full nuclear new build programme, delivering 18GW of new capacity, could create tens of thousands of jobs during the construction phase, add billions to regional economies, while sustaining thousands of high-quality jobs during the 60-year operational life-cycle of the stations UK nuclear: an engine for jobs & economic growth Nuclear has a far greater potential to create and sustain high quality jobs than other low carbon technologies. Based on figures from the ONS, each installed MW of nuclear capacity supports roughly 4.7 direct and indirect (supply chain) full-time equivalent (FTE) roles, compared with 1.5 FTE roles for offshore wind and 1.1 FTE roles for solar. Similarly, averaged over the five years from 2014 to 2019 (the latest available figures), each direct job in the nuclear industry supported more than 2 jobs in the supply chain, whilst each direct job in offshore supported less than one job in the supply chain.1 These figures only capture the benefits from activities related to nuclear power generation; according to research by Oxford Economics, the wider nuclear industry (including sub- sectors such as nuclear decommissioning and R&D) supports around 60,000 direct jobs and a further 80,000 jobs in the wider economy.2 Altogether, the nuclear industry supports more than £11 billion of economic activity. 1 Prospect calculations using ONS (2021) Low Carbon & Renewable Energy Economy (https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/finalestimates/2019) 2 These figures are Prospect calculations based on Oxford Economics employment multiplier figures to reflect updated direct employment numbers. See NIA/Oxford Economics (2017) Nuclear Activity Report (https://www.niauk.org/nuclear- activity-report/) The Economic Impact of UK Nuclear • July 2021 Page 3 The Economic Impact of UK Nuclear • July 2021 Page 4 The nuclear industry is also one of the most productive sectors of the UK economy, with each full-time equivalent direct job in the sector contributing around £104,000 of economic output. This is more than double the UK median and puts the nuclear industry firmly in the 10% of UK sectors for productivity.3 3 NIA/Oxford Economics (2017) Nuclear Activity Report (https://www.niauk.org/nuclear-activity-report/) The Economic Impact of UK Nuclear • July 2021 Page 5 There is a strong regional dimension to nuclear’s economic and employment footprint. The UK’s civil nuclear industry is concentrated in particular in the North West and South West regions of England; close to two-thirds of civil nuclear jobs are located in these regions, and the civil nuclear industry is estimated to support £1 in every £50 of regional economic output.4 At present, nuclear jobs are heavily concentrated in parliamentary constituencies currently held by the Conservative party; all the remaining nuclear power plants in England are now in Conservative-held seats, as are 64% of all nuclear jobs. Of the 11 constituencies with 1,000 or more nuclear workers, accounting for 60% of all nuclear jobs, 8 are currently held by the Conservatives, 3 by Labour. The relatively high average salaries paid to nuclear workers means that local expenditure by nuclear workers makes an important contribution to these local economies.5 Constituencies MP Party No. of Estimated annual with 1000+ nuclear contribution of nuclear nuclear workers workers workers to local economy Copeland Trudy Harrison Conservative 13045 £141,114,836 Bridgwater & Ian Liddell- Conservative 6442 £69,686,606 West Somerset Grainger Warrington Charlotte Labour 3521 £38,088,566 North Nichols Derby South Margaret Labour 3082 £33,339,665 Beckett Henley John Howell Conservative 1466 £15,858,517 Bristol West Thangam Labour 1318 £14,257,520 Debbonaire Morecambe & David Morris Conservative 1298 £14,041,170 Lunesdale Gloucester Richard Graham Conservative 1208 £13,067,591 Fylde Mark Menzies Conservative 1120 £12,115,647 Suffolk Coastal Therese Coffey Conservative 1101 £11,910,114 Folkestone & Damian Collins Conservative 1030 £11,142,068 Hythe Economic & jobs benefits of the new build programme If fully realised, the nuclear new build programme has the potential to deliver a further wave of high value job creation and create billions in new local economic value. The Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C projects, which are very similar in design and are both being led by EDF, are each estimated to add between £3.4 billion and £4 billion to their respective regional economies (the South West of England and East Anglia) during the construction phase. Each will support around 25,000 jobs on site, and over 70,000 jobs in total during construction, with more than 1-in-3 jobs filled by workers from the local area.6 4 NIA (2020) Jobs Map UK 2020 (https://www.niauk.org/resources/jobs-map-2020/) 5 Estimates of local economic contribution of nuclear workers’ wage spending are extrapolated from methodology used by Clockwork City in their 2016 Socioeconomic Review of Westinghouse/Springfields Fuels, updated with more recent earnings data. 6 Data from EDF for Hinkley Point C (https://www.edfenergy.com/sites/default/files/2021_hpc_socio_economic_brochure_-_web.pdf) & Sizewell C (https://www.edfenergy.com/energy/nuclear-new-build-projects/sizewell-c/benefits) The Economic Impact of UK Nuclear • July 2021 Page 6 Economic Impact of Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C (figures are for each project) Contribution to regional economy of £3.2-£4 billion construction project Jobs created on-site during construction ~25,000 Jobs filled by local workers 36% Total jobs supported during construction ~70,000 phase Permanent jobs created during ~900 operational phase Estimated annual economic contribution £40 million to local area during operational phase The full new build programme, which as originally conceived would deliver almost 18GW of new nuclear, has the potential to sustain around 20,000 jobs over the sixty year operational lives of the plants, and could contribute more than £6.7 billion to UK GDP.7 7 Prospect calculations for jobs based on reported figures for direct operational jobs with employment multipliers drawn from the ONS and Oxford Economics; GDP contribution estimated from methodology cited in IPPR (2012) ‘Benefits from Infrastructure Investment: A case study in Nuclear energy’ (https://namrc.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/EDF- infrastructure-investment.pdf), updated to 2020 prices. The Economic Impact of UK Nuclear • July 2021 Page 7 Another key benefit that nuclear brings is the much higher level of UK content in nuclear projects relative to other low carbon technologies. Almost two-thirds of the value of contracts for Hinkley Point C have gone to UK companies, compared with less than half for offshore windfarms built in UK waters. This means a greater proportion of the value of nuclear new build projects will feed through into economic and employment gains for the UK.8 A perennial concern raised about new nuclear projects is their cost, with the relatively high cost of electricity agreed for Hinkley Point C often cited as an example. But, the cost of Hinkley’s electricity is in part the result of a political choice to rely solely on private sector financing for the project and to leave a private developer to assume all the project risk. Given that a major component of the overall cost of new nuclear plants is the cost of financing, this approach inevitably led to high prices for consumers. 8 Local content for HPC as reported by EDF; figure for offshore wind is as reported by trade body RenewableUK (see https://guidetoanoffshorewindfarm.com/uk-content) The Economic Impact of UK Nuclear • July 2021 Page 8 But, as the National Audit Office (NAO) pointed out, alternative approaches where risks were shared and cheap public financing was used could have dramatically reduced the cost of electricity, potentially by close to 50%. A Regulated Asset Base model, where the developer is allowed to raise revenue from consumers during construction via a small surcharge on energy bills, or a public-private partnership approach where the government takes a substantial equity stake in the project, could both have lowered costs.9 In summary, the existing nuclear industry supports tens of thousands of high-quality jobs across the UK, and creates billions in economic value for UK Plc.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Kirkham Grammar School Headmaster’S Letter to Parents Spring 2010 from the Headmaster
    Kirkham Grammar School Headmaster’s Letter to Parents Spring 2010 From the Headmaster determination to gain support from 11 but I sense that he would have the Education Board necessitated a approved of the continued development development of facilities, hence the of the school site. building. As a school of 50 pupils and The pupils of 1910-11 certainly a handful of staff this was a visionary did not have to endure the continual project especially as the school had barrage of examinations undertaken not enjoyed great security over the by our current students! They have, past century. It was said of Rev Walton however, continued to excel in this by his successor "the school is his public arena and the recent School lasting memorial" after the Headmaster Performance Tables indicated the high died in office in 1919. The new levels attained by our examinees. building benefited not only from the GCSE results saw near perfect pass Headmaster's enthusiasm and vision rates and very high numbers gaining but also from a grant from the Drapers' results which included the core Company of £3000 along with donations subjects of English, Mathematics and from parents and friends. The new the Sciences. building not only cemented the school's Results in Biology, Chemistry and position with the Board of Education Physics once again saw over 90% of but also led to a rapid rise in numbers pupils gaining grades at A*/A while as the school roll rose to 111 by 1917. overall the school has seen no need It is fair to say that Rev Walton's to extend the curriculum to include action not only created the beautiful subjects purely to improve statistics.
    [Show full text]
  • THE 422 Mps WHO BACKED the MOTION Conservative 1. Bim
    THE 422 MPs WHO BACKED THE MOTION Conservative 1. Bim Afolami 2. Peter Aldous 3. Edward Argar 4. Victoria Atkins 5. Harriett Baldwin 6. Steve Barclay 7. Henry Bellingham 8. Guto Bebb 9. Richard Benyon 10. Paul Beresford 11. Peter Bottomley 12. Andrew Bowie 13. Karen Bradley 14. Steve Brine 15. James Brokenshire 16. Robert Buckland 17. Alex Burghart 18. Alistair Burt 19. Alun Cairns 20. James Cartlidge 21. Alex Chalk 22. Jo Churchill 23. Greg Clark 24. Colin Clark 25. Ken Clarke 26. James Cleverly 27. Thérèse Coffey 28. Alberto Costa 29. Glyn Davies 30. Jonathan Djanogly 31. Leo Docherty 32. Oliver Dowden 33. David Duguid 34. Alan Duncan 35. Philip Dunne 36. Michael Ellis 37. Tobias Ellwood 38. Mark Field 39. Vicky Ford 40. Kevin Foster 41. Lucy Frazer 42. George Freeman 43. Mike Freer 44. Mark Garnier 45. David Gauke 46. Nick Gibb 47. John Glen 48. Robert Goodwill 49. Michael Gove 50. Luke Graham 51. Richard Graham 52. Bill Grant 53. Helen Grant 54. Damian Green 55. Justine Greening 56. Dominic Grieve 57. Sam Gyimah 58. Kirstene Hair 59. Luke Hall 60. Philip Hammond 61. Stephen Hammond 62. Matt Hancock 63. Richard Harrington 64. Simon Hart 65. Oliver Heald 66. Peter Heaton-Jones 67. Damian Hinds 68. Simon Hoare 69. George Hollingbery 70. Kevin Hollinrake 71. Nigel Huddleston 72. Jeremy Hunt 73. Nick Hurd 74. Alister Jack (Teller) 75. Margot James 76. Sajid Javid 77. Robert Jenrick 78. Jo Johnson 79. Andrew Jones 80. Gillian Keegan 81. Seema Kennedy 82. Stephen Kerr 83. Mark Lancaster 84.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Electricity Bill
    Local Electricity Bill A B I L L TO Enable electricity generators to become local electricity suppliers; and for connected purposes. 1 Purpose The purpose of this Act is to encourage and enable the local supply of electricity. 2 Local electricity suppliers (1) An electricity generator may be a local electricity supplier. (2) In this section “electricity generator” has the same meaning as in section 6 of the Electricity Act 1989. (3) A local supplier must – (a) hold a local electricity supply licence, and (b) adhere to the conditions of that local electricity supply licence. 3 Amendment of the Electricity Act 1989 (1) The Electricity Act 1989 is amended as follows. (2) In section 6 (licences authorising supply, etc.), after subsection (1)(d), insert – “(da) a licence authorising a person to supply electricity to premises within a designated local area (“a local electricity supply licence”); (3) After section 6 insert – “6ZA Local electricity supply licences (1) Subject to it exercising its other functions under this Act the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority (“the Authority”) may grant a local electricity supply licence to a person who meets local electricity supply licence conditions. (2) The Authority must set local electricity supply licence conditions. (3) The Authority must specify the designated local area for each local electricity supply licence. (4) Before making any specification under subsection (3) the Authority must consult – (a) any relevant local authority; (b) any existing local electricity suppliers; (c) any persons who have, to the knowledge of the Authority, expressed an interest in becoming local electricity suppliers; (d) any other person who, in its opinion, has an interest in that matter.
    [Show full text]
  • Consultant in Public Health/Public Health Medicine Candidate Pack Contents
    Consultant in Public Health/Public Health Medicine Candidate pack Contents Help us to improve Lancashire’s health and wellbeing 5 Welcome from Louise Taylor, Executive Director 7 Political composition of Lancashire County Council 8 Job description 10 Person specification 12 Terms of employment and employee benefits 13 How to apply 15 2 3 Help us to improve Lancashire’s health and wellbeing Lancashire is a place we’re very proud of, and we’re proud of our county council too. Like most large organisations, though, there are some things we need to do better. Our three Public Health Consultant positions will play an important role in improving the health and wellbeing of our population and help us to transform the way we deliver our services. Our vision is that every citizen in Lancashire will enjoy a long and healthy life. Our Lancashire Health and Wellbeing strategy has been developed by Lancashire’s Health and Wellbeing Board, with key stakeholders including the locality health and wellbeing partnerships. Our ambition is to work better together to deliver real improvements and address the inequalities in the health and wellbeing of Lancashire’s citizens and communities. The strategy aims to promote working together to: • Achieve changes in the way that partners work; resulting in more effective collaboration and greater impact on health and wellbeing in Lancashire; • Learn the lessons arising from this collaboration to strengthen future working together; • Pursue the “Triple Aim” of improving outcomes, enhancing quality of care and reducing costs. This is a challenging and pivotal role and we’re looking for candidates with substantial experience.
    [Show full text]
  • Parliamentary Debates House of Commons Official Report General Committees
    PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT GENERAL COMMITTEES Public Bill Committee DIGITAL ECONOMY BILL Tenth Sitting Thursday 27 October 2016 (Afternoon) CONTENTS CLAUSES 56 to 84 agreed to, some with amendments. Adjourned till Tuesday 1 November at twenty-five minutes past Nine o’clock. Written evidence reported to the House. PBC (Bill 045) 2016 - 2017 No proofs can be supplied. Corrections that Members suggest for the final version of the report should be clearly marked in a copy of the report—not telephoned—and must be received in the Editor’s Room, House of Commons, not later than Monday 31 October 2016 © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2016 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 367 Public Bill Committee 27 OCTOBER 2016 Digital Economy Bill 368 The Committee consisted of the following Members: Chairs: †MR GARY STREETER,GRAHAM STRINGER Adams, Nigel (Selby and Ainsty) (Con) Mann, Scott (North Cornwall) (Con) † Brennan, Kevin (Cardiff West) (Lab) † Matheson, Christian (City of Chester) (Lab) † Davies, Mims (Eastleigh) (Con) † Menzies, Mark (Fylde) (Con) Debbonaire, Thangam (Bristol West) (Lab) † Perry, Claire (Devizes) (Con) † Foxcroft, Vicky (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) † Skidmore, Chris (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet † Haigh, Louise (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab) Office) † Hancock, Matt (Minister for Digital and Culture) † Stuart, Graham (Beverley and Holderness) (Con) Hendry, Drew (Inverness, Nairn,
    [Show full text]
  • Urgent Open Letter to Jesse Norman Mp on the Loan Charge
    URGENT OPEN LETTER TO JESSE NORMAN MP ON THE LOAN CHARGE Dear Minister, We are writing an urgent letter to you in your new position as the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. On the 11th April at the conclusion of the Loan Charge Debate the House voted in favour of the motion. The Will of the House is clearly for an immediate suspension of the Loan Charge and an independent review of this legislation. Many Conservative MPs have criticised the Loan Charge as well as MPs from other parties. As you will be aware, there have been suicides of people affected by the Loan Charge. With the huge anxiety thousands of people are facing, we believe that a pause and a review is vital and the right and responsible thing to do. You must take notice of the huge weight of concern amongst MPs, including many in your own party. It was clear in the debate on the 4th and the 11th April, that the Loan Charge in its current form is not supported by a majority of MPs. We urge you, as the Rt Hon Cheryl Gillan MP said, to listen to and act upon the Will of the House. It is clear from their debate on 29th April that the House of Lords takes the same view. We urge you to announce a 6-month delay today to give peace of mind to thousands of people and their families and to allow for a proper review. Ross Thomson MP John Woodcock MP Rt Hon Sir Edward Davey MP Jonathan Edwards MP Ruth Cadbury MP Tulip Siddiq MP Baroness Kramer Nigel Evans MP Richard Harrington MP Rt Hon Sir Vince Cable MP Philip Davies MP Lady Sylvia Hermon MP Catherine West MP Rt Hon Dame Caroline
    [Show full text]
  • Whole Day Download the Hansard
    Monday Volume 687 18 January 2021 No. 161 HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) Monday 18 January 2021 © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2021 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 601 18 JANUARY 2021 602 David Linden [V]: Under the Horizon 2020 programme, House of Commons the UK consistently received more money out than it put in. Under the terms of this agreement, the UK is set to receive no more than it contributes. While universities Monday 18 January 2021 in Scotland were relieved to see a commitment to Horizon Europe in the joint agreement, what additional funding The House met at half-past Two o’clock will the Secretary of State make available to ensure that our overall level of research funding is maintained? PRAYERS Gavin Williamson: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Government have been very clear in our [MR SPEAKER in the Chair] commitment to research. The Prime Minister has stated Virtual participation in proceedings commenced time and time again that our investment in research is (Orders, 4 June and 30 December 2020). absolutely there, ensuring that we deliver Britain as a [NB: [V] denotes a Member participating virtually.] global scientific superpower. That is why more money has been going into research, and universities will continue to play an incredibly important role in that, but as he Oral Answers to Questions will be aware, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy manages the research element that goes into the funding of universities.
    [Show full text]
  • The Implications for Scotland of Both the Strategic Defence and Security Review and the Comprehensive Spending Review
    House of Commons Scottish Affairs Committee The implications for Scotland of both the Strategic Defence and Security Review and The Comprehensive Spending Review Oral and written evidence Oral evidence taken and ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 3 November 2010 and 7 June 2011 HC 580 i-ii Published on 7 February 2012 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £8.50 The Scottish Affairs Committee The Scottish Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Scotland Office (including (i) relations with the Scottish Parliament and (ii) administration and expenditure of the offices of the Advocate General for Scotland (but excluding individual cases and advice given within government by the Advocate General)). Current membership Mr Ian Davidson (Labour/Co-op, Glasgow South West) (Chair) Fiona Bruce (Conservative, Congleton) Mike Freer (Conservative, Finchley and Golders Green) Jim McGovern (Labour, Dundee West) Iain McKenzie MP (Lab, Inverclyde) Graeme Morrice MP (Lab, Livingston) David Mowat (Conservative, Warrington South) Fiona O’Donnell (Labour, East Lothian) Simon Reevell (Conservative, Dewsbury) Mr Alan Reid (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute) Lindsay Roy (Labour, Glenrothes) Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan) The following members were also members of the committee during the Parliament: Cathy Jamieson (Labour/Co-op, Kilmarnock and Loudoun) Fiona O’Donnell (Labour, East Lothian) Mark Menzies (Conservative, Fylde) Julian Smith (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon) Powers The committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No.
    [Show full text]
  • OUR OFFICERS CHAIR Jim Shannon MP CO-CHAIR Baroness Berridge
    THE ALL PARTY PARLIAMENTARY GROUP FOR INTERNATIONAL FREEDOM OF RELIGION OR BELIEF 2 MAY 2017 OUR OFFICERS CHAIR Jim Shannon MP CO-CHAIR Baroness Berridge Gavin Shuker MP VICE-CHAIRS Lord Singh of Wimbledon Baroness Cox TREASURER Jeremy Lefroy MP SECRETARY Dr Eilidh Whiteford MP George Howarth MP OUR MEMBERS Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh MP Lord Alton Sir David Amess MP Edward Argar MP Steve Baker MP Baroness Berridge Ian Blackford MP Lord Boateng Sir Peter Bottomley MP Tom Brake MP Julian Brazier MP Baroness Brinton Alan Brown MP Fiona Bruce MP Richard Burden MP David Burrowes MP Gregory Campbell MP Lord Clarke of Hampstead Lord Collins Lord Cotter Bishop of Coventry Baroness Cox Geoffrey Cox MP Jon Cruddas MP Nic Dakin MP Bishop of Derby Nigel Dodds MP Sir Jeffrey Donaldson MP Stephen Doughty MP Mark Durkan MP Jonathan Edwards MP Tom Elliott MP Nigel Evans MP Margaret Ferrier MP Robert Flello MP Mike Gapes MP Patricia Gibson MP Lord Gordon Richard Graham MP Peter Grant MP Chris Green MP Fabian Hamilton MP Sharon Hodgson MP George Howarth MP Sir Gerald Howarth MP Dr Rupa Huq MP Jeremy Lefroy MP Dr Julian Lewis MP Kerry McCarthy MP Lord McColl Siobhain McDonagh MP Liz McInnes MP Anne McLaughlin MP John McNally MP Rob Marris MP Chris Matheson MP Mark Menzies MP Sarah Newton MP Lord Oates Brendan O’Hara MP Kirsten Oswald MP Ian Paisley MP Lord Parekh Bishop of Peterborough Steve Pound MP Mark Pritchard MP Gavin Robinson MP Andrew Rosindell MP David Rutley MP Bishop of St Albans Liz Saville Roberts MP Lord Selkirk Jim Shannon MP Baroness Sherlock Gavin Shuker MP David Simpson MP Lord Singh of Wimbledon Caroline Spelman MP Andrew Stephenson MP Gary Streeter MP Wes Streeting MP Lord Suri Derek Thomas MP Gareth Thomas MP Stephen Timms MP Michael Tomlinson MP Tom Tugendhat MP Valerie Vaz MP Catherine West MP Dr Eilidh Whiteford MP Sammy Wilson MP Bishop of Worcester .
    [Show full text]
  • Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)
    Wednesday Volume 692 14 April 2021 No. 200 HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) Wednesday 14 April 2021 © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2021 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 301 14 APRIL 2021 302 The total impact, by the Government’s own admission, House of Commons is that they will not meet the fourth and fifth carbon budgets. When we pull back the curtain, there is not Wednesday 14 April 2021 much to look at, and we are running out of time. He has just said, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), that there will be a net zero The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock strategy. We need it before the summer recess to make the Government’s word credible ahead of COP26. Does he agree with that, and if so, what is he doing about it? PRAYERS Alok Sharma: As someone who was partly responsible [MR SPEAKER in the Chair] for preparing the 10-point plan, may I suggest that the Virtual participation in proceedings commenced (Orders, hon. Gentleman actually reads the detail of it? I have 4 June and 30 December 2020). discussed the sector-specific points in it with individuals [NB: [V] denotes a Member participating virtually.] in different sectors of industry, who have found it quite compelling. Of course I agree that we need to be doing more, and that is why I have committed to publishing Oral Answers to Questions the comprehensive net zero strategy ahead of COP26.
    [Show full text]
  • Brexit: an Analysis of Eurosceptic Mobilisation and the British Vote to Leave the European Union
    Brexit: An Analysis of Eurosceptic Mobilisation and the British Vote to Leave the European Union by Kayla McCrary A thesis presented to the Honors College of Middle Tennessee State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation from the University Honors College. Fall 2016 1 Brexit: An Analysis of Eurosceptic Mobilisation and the British Vote to Leave the European Union by Kayla McCrary APPROVED: ____________________________ Dr. Vanessa Lefler Assistant Professor and Adviser Political Science and International Relations ___________________________________ Dr. Stephen Morris Department Chair Political Science and International Relations ___________________________ Dr. John Vile Dean of University Honors College 2 Acknowledgments I would like to thank Dr. Vanessa Lefler for several years of patience, advising, mentorship, and inspiration. Dr. Lefler’s dedication to the field of International Relations has served as a constant motivation and inspiration to me. Thank you, Dr. Lefler, for every office meeting, reference, book suggestion, and for your support for your students and department. Additionally, I would like to thank Department Chair Dr. Stephen Morris for constant and consistent resources in the Political Science and International Relations Department. I would like to thank the Department for funding on a presentation of an excerpt from this thesis, Britain: A Comprehensive Analysis of Britain’s Vote to Leave the European Union, at the Undergraduate Social Science Symposium and the Tennessee Experiential Learning Symposium in October 2016. I would like to also thank the University of Chester in Chester, England for resources during my research in 2015. Furthermore, I would like to thank every funder of my studies while abroad, including the University Honors College.
    [Show full text]
  • UK Parliamentary Select Committees 2020 a Cicero/AMO Analysis Cicero/AMO / March 2020 /
    / UK Parliamentary Select Committees 2020 A Cicero/AMO Analysis Cicero/AMO / March 2020 / / / Contents Foreword 3 Treasury Select Committee 4 Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee 6 Work and Pensions Committee 8 Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union 10 International Trade Committee 12 Home Affairs Committee 14 Health and Social Care Committee 16 Transport Committee 18 Environmental Audit Committee 20 Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee 23 Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee 25 About Cicero/AMO 27 Foreword After December’s General Election, the House of Commons Select Committees have now been reconstituted. Cicero/AMO is pleased to share with you our analysis of the key Select Committees, including a look at their Chairs, members, the ‘ones to watch’ and their likely priorities. Select Committees – made up of backbench MPs – are charged with scrutinising Government departments and specific policy areas. They have become an increasingly important part of the parliamentary infrastructure, and never more so than in the last Parliament, where the lack of Government majority and party splits over Brexit allowed Select Committees to provide an authoritative form of Government scrutiny. However, this new Parliament looks very different. The large majority afforded to Boris Johnson in the election and the resulting Labour leadership contest give rise to a number of questions over Select Committee influence. Will the Government take Select Committee recommendations seriously as they form policy, or – without the need to keep every backbencher on side - will they feel at liberty to disregard the input of Committees? Will the Labour Party regroup when a new Leader is in place and provide a more effective Opposition or will a long period of navel-gazing leave space for Select Committees to fill this void? While Select Committees’ ability to effectively keep Government in check remains unclear, they will still be able to influence the media narrative around their chosen areas of inquiry.
    [Show full text]